text:
When has China said it will mandate head up displays (HUD)?
I tried to google this but could not seem to get a clear answer.  I was wondering because I heard they first mandated all aircraft by some date which was no where near realistic in terms of cost to the airlines.  They therefore either have reconsidered, or will need to reconsider but I am unclear on it all.

2025
Sometime in 2012 CAAC are alleged to have suggested 100% of Chinese airlines should have adopted HUDs by 2025.
It seems the Rockwell Collins Heads-Up Guidance System (HGS) has been trialled and that HGS equipped aircraft are permitted to land at certain airports in low visibility conditions - lower landing minima for HGS equipped aircraft.
Reports mention enhanced vision systems (EFV) and enhanced flight vision systems (AFVS) where the HUD is used to project data, including runway outlines, over the pilot's view of the runway ahead.
The CAAC seem to be actively encouraging this, but I don't find the  word mandatory used in this context.

November 14, 2012, 5:07 PM
Rockwell Collins China managing director Ron Ho believes business for aircraft head-up displays (HUD) in China will soon be looking up. “We have been working with the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) for the past 10 years on the HUD project, and now it has reached the stage where CAAC will require the Chinese airlines to implement the HUDs into their operations,” he explained.
“This will be done in three phases, I understand,” Ho noted. “During the first phase, 10 percent of all the airlines will be equipped and operating with HUDs. In the [s]econd phase, this will be 50 percent. The third phase will be complete fleet equipage by the year 2025.”

From AINonline - Chinese Authorities Commit To Aircraft Head-Up Display Mandate

FAA has also been coordinating with CAAC. In Aug 2012 FAA hosted a Pacific Rim conference in Long Beach CA identifying key technologies, operations and regulations that could be improved with HUD, advanced PFDs and vision systems. Soon after the conference, the CAAC HUD application roadmap appeared. China has without hesitation laid forth a plan to move the country's civil aviation into a 100% HUD compliant operation by 2025.

From Professional Pilot Magazine - HUD gains favor in Asia Pacific

Start HGS from 2005
End of 2010, 52 B727-NGs
... Primary reference for maneuvering ... is natural vision
Promote airlines using HUD

From CAAC - HUD/EFVS systems in the implement(sic) in China

Do note CAAC will require the Chinese airlines to.


text:
Do I have to notify ATC if I go-around when I was cleared for a touch and go?
If I was cleared for a touch and go and go-around on short final or just before touchdown, do I have to notify ATC?
I still would have made a takeoff after the touchdown during a touch and go, so it's basically the same when I start the climb a few seconds earlier isn't it?

You don't really ever have to "declare" a go-around, it is your option as a pilot to discontinue an approach and make another attempt any time you feel uncomfortable about continuing. ATC will see what you are doing and won't talk to you, they will assume you will climb to traffic pattern altitude on the runway heading and follow the traffic pattern. Once you get stabilized and your workload goes down, contact ATC for further instructions.

Yes; It may be interesting for ATC to know the reason for your go around. Was there traffic on the runway? Birds on final approach? Wind shear?

Which country are you asking about?

@Pondlife I asked in general, but if there are significant differences I would be interested in them.

@NoahFisher It would be nearly impossible to list "significant differences" for every country in the world, so we restrict regulatory questions to a specific locality so that they may be answered.

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook, page 4-41 (as part of the Missed Approach section), there is a quote about what to do when you need to go around when operating beyond the missed approach point:

In the event a balked (rejected) landing occurs at a position other
  than the published missed approach point, the pilot should contact ATC
  as soon as possible to obtain an amended clearance.

I have seen several other references in FAA documents which say to "contact ATC as soon as practical" in similar situations, but nothing which specifically says to do it any time that a go around is initiated by the pilot (i.e. under VFR).
That being said, if you have received a specific clearance (for a touch and go), and decide that you prefer to do something else (low approach/go-around), you should always receive an amended clearance first.  If you know ahead of time, your best option is probably to request the "option", in which case you have a clearance to do either one.
On the other hand, if the reason for the go-around is due to a safety issue then execute the go-around immediately when needed, and follow the above guidance to contact ATC as soon as practical if they don't call you first.
I was taught by my flight instructor to always report it, and the tower certainly needs to know about it in order to provide proper separation with other aircraft operating in the area.  If nothing else, it is a "best practice" to ensure that the person in the tower doesn't get distracted and not notice that you didn't land.

I don't see the relevance of the IFR procedures covered in the Instrument Procedures Handbook, and the present discussion of touch-and-goes at a towered field. When going missed under IFR, you need to amend your clearance. When doing a go-around at a towered field, there is no IFR clearance to amend.

@JonathanWalters Well, he didn't specify IFR or VFR, so my answer is generic and covers both. As for your second point, even when VFR you are given a clearance (not an IFR one) when you are cleared for a touch and go, etc. and therefore need to obtain an amended clearance if you want to do something different.

@JonathanWalters Oh, and actually your statement that you need to amend your clearance when going missed under IFR is wrong too.  A clearance for an approach included a clearance for the missed approach (ref AIM).  The quote that I included above is for a balked landing, which is a VFR procedure since you are operating on a visual approach or below IFR landing minimums (and therefore quite similar to a VFR go-around), not a missed approach.

The general answer is: yes, you have to notify ATC that you are going around. This is clearly stated in the ICAO Manual of Radiotelephony (doc 9432) (emphasis mine):

4.8.3    In the event that the missed approach is initiated by the pilot, the phrase “GOING AROUND” shall be used.

Note the use of the word "shall", which denotes a mandatory action.
This applies equally to approaches with the intention to land and approaches for touch and goes (since not stated otherwise).
As others have pointed out, you should always focus on flying the aircraft first before worrying talking on the radio. Make sure you have the situation under control before talking to ATC.
Note that the other answers posted so far only focus on local rules in the USA. The answer I have provided here is general since it is based on ICAO SARPs, and applies to the entire world, except for specific countries which have decided to not follow certain international standards.

Well, he actually should specify the rules that he is asking about (I wrote my answer before I noticed that he didn't specify).  As you say, there are specific countries which have decided to not follow certain international standards, so this answer could be wrong as well.  (I still gave you a +1 for the SARPs quote, but your last paragraph shows that your answer could be just as wrong as the others that assume a particular jurisdiction.)

From my experience, it is definitely good airmanship to advise the tower (and thereby other aircraft) of your intentions if you are doing something unexpected.  If you are on IFR and cleared for the touch and go or "the option", then you should already have received climb out instructions, which would apply whether you actually touched down or not.  So there's no issue from a clearance perspective.
The reason for announcing it is that going around instead of touching down can significantly change the pattern spacing.  If you are following close behind another aircraft, going around would put you much closer.  Tower may ask you to extend upwind a bit.  Like Dingo_Chaser said though, Aviate Navigate, Communicate.  If you've got your hands full then don't worry about it.

From my experience and conversations with my CFI, I think it's more of a courtesy to the tower and to the other planes in the area, so they know what to expect. After all, if it's at a controlled airport, the tower will have a visual on you during your landing.

I would say it is Good Airmanship to announce what you are doing rather than just a courtesy.    When ever an aircraft does something unexpected it could easily cause a conflict or safety issue.

I agree, but it's not mandatory to declare a go-around when you're performing one. If the conditions aren't optimal, there's a lot more to worry about in the cockpit than declaring intention. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Required, no. But it's always a good idea.
In the Airman's Handbook, it says that you should always contact the tower when a missed approach procedure must be executed. The purpose for this is to alert the tower of any air or ground conditions that caused you to abort the landing attempt, which they may not be aware of.
However, remember your priorities: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Your first priority is to fly the plane. Your second priority is to point the plane where it needs to go and to avoid any potential collisions with other planes. Once you have accomplished both of those and still have mental and physical capacity, you can talk to whomever might need to know what you're doing.
This is all just as true of a T&G as for an actual landing. If you can't T&G because someone pulled onto the numbers right in front of you, the tower will want to know that even if it was just a "practice landing attempt". But, a T&G is even more mentally demanding than a normal landing, because it's a landing followed immediately by a takeoff, and your first priority is to handle the plane in a safe manner for everyone involved.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is there a standard for the trip paperwork packages that are used by the airlines?
I have noticed that different airlines (like LIDO, Delta, AA, etc.) have different formats for their trip paperwork packages, containing pre-flight information that they give to their pilots.  These packages contain things like their flight plan, NOTAM's, weather, weight & balance, etc. There is some overlap of course, but I was wondering if FAA/EASA has some standard or guideline for generating the package?

LIDO is not an airline.

For national flights, FAA prefers ICAO flight plan. For international flights, ICAO format must be used, From FAA Flight Planning Information:

The FAA prefers users to file ICAO format flight plans for all flights. An ICAO format flight plan MUST be used when:

The flight will enter international airspace, including oceanic airspace controlled by FAA facilities.
The flight expects routing or separation based on Performance Based Navigation (PBN), e.g. RNAV 1.
The flight will enter RVSM airspace.
The flight expects services based on ADS-B.

EASA follows a format similar to ICAO.
The flight plan usually consists of the following:

Aircraft type and identification.
Flight Rules.
Equipment.
Source, destination, departure time and (estimated) arrival time.
Route details.

among other things.
The following image shows the ICAO international flight plan

Image from Form 7233-4 - Pre-Flight Pilot Checklist and International Flight Plan from faa.gov
The following shows the domestic flight plan from FAA. Note that the ICAO format may be followed in domestic flights too.

Image from Form 7233-1 - Flight Plan from faa.gov

There are no guidelines by FAA/EASA for preparing flight plans.
As per FAA, criteria for International (ICAO) Flight Plan Filing are:

The FAA prefers users to file ICAO format flight plans for all flights. An ICAO format flight plan MUST be used when:

The flight will enter international airspace, including oceanic airspace controlled by FAA facilities.
The flight expects routing or separation based on Performance Based Navigation (PBN), e.g. RNAV 1.
The flight will enter RVSM airspace.
The flight expects services based on ADS-B.

There is a form in Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Section 1, Paragraph 5-1-9 that need to be filled with all the required information.
Criteria for Domestic Flight Plan Filing are:

Flights that remain wholly within domestic United States airspace, and do not meet any of the criteria requiring an ICAO format flight plan, may use an FAA domestic format flight plan.

There is a form in AIM Section 5-1-8 (FAA Form 7233-1) that needs to be filled with all the required information.
File the Flight Plan by any of the following methods.

Submit a hard-copy flight plan form to your local flight service
station.
Call Flight Services (1-800-WX-BRIEF or 1-800-992-7433) – The flight services specialist will file your flight plan.
Submit your plan online through one of the following free services:
     - Direct User Access Terminal (DUAT)
     - Direct User Access Terminal Service (DUATS)
     - Lockheed Martin Flight Services

Note: All the information is available in www.faa.gov

The international standard is the ICAO flight plan. For national flights different formats may be allowed.
See this article on SKYbrary for details on what the ICAO flight plan contains.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Are HUD systems available for light GA aircraft?
Some other questions about HUDs and how they work got me thinking. Military aircraft have had reflector sights since before WWII, and full HUDs since the mid-70s. The very same display layout, sans targeting recticles, is fairly familiar to pilots of glass-cockpit aircraft, the primary difference being the representation of the artificial horizon (which, because the display is not a HUD and so not transparent, uses the blue/brown background from the analog instrument).
True HUD systems are starting to make their way into commercial airliners, and the technology is even seen in various cars (primarily luxury brands) as a situational awareness tool. So the question is, what types of reflector-sight flight display systems are available for light singles? I would assume a glass cockpit is a prerequisite to generate the digital display, but given that concession, it seems fairly straightforward to have a monochrome version of the PFD projected onto a glass plate instead of or in addition to the display on the LCD monitor. Has anyone marketed this? Are there disadvantages of having a HUD in a GA aircraft that I'm not thinking about? This sounds like a natural next step now that even entry-level LSAs are foregoing the traditional analog 6-pack for glass displays.

I'm sure the main disadvantage is cost. Other than that, I haven't heard anything about GA HUDs

Yeah, that's just what I need, a HUD, so I can cut off other guys in the pattern much more sharply while maintaining situational awareness.

It looks like there have been several attempts at coming up with viable HUDs for light singles but none have, well, taken off (business jets are a different story):

The VirtualHUD company mentioned in this article doesn't exist any more
The G-HULP exists and you can buy it but I couldn't find any useful information about it or even the manufacturer's website

Since there's really nothing much out there, it suggests that HUDs for light singles are too expensive for typical pilots and/or just not useful.
Cost is always relative, but the standalone G-HULP costs USD 6,000 and that has to be compared to other, potentially more useful things like avgas (i.e. flying time!), avionics upgrades, ADS-B or just general maintenance.
But even if a GA pilot has nothing better to spend his money on, it isn't clear that HUDs are actually as useful as you might think. This article looks at a new Honeywell system for business jets that overlays a HUD view on the PFD, and they compared the landing precision of 'heads-up' (traditional HUD) vs. 'heads-down' (HUD on the PFD) pilots:

A chart that showed landing points at the end of approaches flown by
  pilots using the two systems showed scattershot points with no
  apparent bias toward either system. Both systems allowed their pilots
  to fly very accurate approaches.
This result, Ververs says, surprised the pilots in the study who had a
  lot of HUD time going into the testing. They had all assumed, she
  says, that the HUD would be the better technology. As far as the
  testing experience could show, it wasn’t better [...]

Of course that's only one specific testing scenario, but it's a very critical one because landings are when you really need to see and react quickly. Personally, I'm not convinced that focusing my eyes on the HUD for airspeed and then through the HUD to the runway would be any quicker or easier than just flicking my eyes between the airspeed indicator and the runway centerline. (Jan Hudec made the comment that focusing shouldn't be an issue with a "good" HUD, so this may not be an issue at all, at least in theory.)
And there are probably other issues with a HUD too, like making an instrument scan more complex; making the pilot focus his vision on the HUD rather than into the distance; or just being a general distraction.
There is an interesting alternative concept to a fixed HUD, by the way: wearable tech. Whether it's any more successful remains to be seen.

In a good HUD the image is formed at infinity, so you don't refocus your eyes between the HUD and outside.

@JanHudec Thanks for that, I have zero experience with HUDs so it's good to know. I've updated my answer.

I don't have experience either, but I did try to understand how they work.

FYI aero glass ran out of funding, but perhaps someone else will pick up the pieces if that's what you're getting at.

Not exactly a HUD but Aero Glass was a project to make augmented reality (AR) glasses that let you "see" the airspace around you. Unfortunately they ran out of funding in 2018 :(
Airspace designated for airports, restricted areas, jump areas, etc. are all displayed in AR, and it looks like they even have an ADS-B feed to the glasses so you can easily spot traffic.
Couple screenshots from the video on this page:

Just noticed @Pondlife already mentioned aero glass in his answer, but this maybe adds some additional info.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
ICAO and EASA classification of instrument approaches
ICAO distinguishes approaches operations based on DH between 'Type A' (DH >= 250 ft) and 'Type B' (DH < 250 ft), which are further divided into subcategories. From the Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft Part I:

a) Type A: a minimum descent height or decision height at or above 75 m (250 ft); and
b) Type B: a decision height below 75 m (250 ft). Type B instrument approach operations are categorized as:

Category I (CAT I): a decision height not lower than 60 m (200 ft) and with either a visibility not less than 800 m or a runway visual range not less than 550 m;
Category II (CAT II): a decision height lower than 60 m (200 ft) but not lower than 30 m (100 ft) and a runway visual range not less than 300 m;
Category IIIA (CAT IIIA): a decision height lower than 30 m (100 ft) or no decision height and a runway visual range not less than 175 m;
Category IIIB (CAT IIIB): a decision height lower than 15 m (50 ft) or no decision height and a runway visual range less than 175 m but not less than 50 m; and
Category IIIC (CAT IIIC): no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.

Instrument approach procedures are further classified as follows:

Non-precision approach (NPA) procedure. An instrument approach procedure designed for 2D instrument approach operations Type A.
Approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV). A performance-based navigation (PBN) instrument approach procedure designed for 3D instrument approach operations Type A.
Precision approach (PA) procedure. An instrument approach procedure based on navigation systems (ILS, MLS, GLS and SBAS CAT I) designed for 3D instrument approach operations Type A or B.

If I understand correctly, EASA would like to implement similar concept (as stated in 'Notice of Proposed Amendment 2018-06(C)'). On page 51, there is a summary table with classification of approaches:

From the table above, how can Category I/II/III approach be 'Type A'
approach (green rows)? I thought that from the definition, only 'Type B'
approaches have subcategories.
What kind of approach would be LIRN ILS Z RWY 06 (see the chart
below)? What kind of planning minima should I use?

I don't understand the colours' meaning on the last table.

I'm trying to transform the title in a question (as this is a Q&A website), but I'm unhappy with the formulation I have. What about "how can CatIII approach (according to ICAO classification) can be classified as type A (by EASA classification) and what minimas should I use?"

@ManuH Thank you for pointing that out. Maybe just 'How can Type A approach be CAT I/II/III' is enough?

First, you're reading the EASA table wrong. Type A approaches are not all the green rows, they're the vertical column that says "Type A, 2D or 3D" that covers all the specific column of all the green rows and the blue also. On the right side of that column, you see Type B approaches, divided to subcategories. All of those being 3D approaches.
Second, the approach you are asking about is a precision approach. Type B 3D approach if we want to use the new terms. It's an ILS-approach, it has a vertical flight path guidance. You should use precision approach planning minima. It does have a higher minima than ILS usually does. The higher minima is most likely because of nearby high terrain influencing the go-around requirement.
I would say it's Type B 3D because it's Cat 1 ILS, therefore it's a precision approach and it must be a precision runway. The lowest possible DH for Cat 1 ILS is 200ft. With these facts I would place it in the given category. Although this particular approach minima is higher, it is not because of the approach it self, but rather because of obstacles.

I know that Type A approaches aren't all the green rows. But part of them are (under Type A column). What are those? Why is the approach in LIRN Type B? DH is obviously more than 250 ft.

@Filip N. Edited

Ok, I think I got it. So Type A/B is about system minima and not about actual aerodrome operating minima. Thank you.

@Filip N. , Can you explain the difference between System minima and actual AOM?

@ShahabMohd System minima is the lowest minima for a given approach system. For example, CAT 1 ILS system minima is 200ft above ground level. You can never have a lower CAT 1 ILS minima than that. The actual operating minima is determined for each runway and approach separately. Let's say that an airport has a CAT 1 ILS approach on RWY24. The procedure planner would see if 200ft minima is enough for a safe go-around for that runway. If not (because of obstacles usually) the minima will be raised higher to clear the obstacles. That's how we get the "actual minima".

In effect, system minima is same as the OCA published for that particular approach. isn't?

If I remember correctly, yes.

@Sami EASA 965/2012 GM3 CAT.OP.MPA.182 Fuel/energy scheme — aerodrome selection policy — aeroplanes para (c) says
"........ If the DH is 250 ft or more, it will be a type A approach operation; if the DH is less than 250 ft, it will be a type B approach operation.
So, while ILS approaches to most runways may be conducted as type B approach operations, difficult obstacle situations, driving up the DH to 250 ft or higher, will result in type A approach operations."
This tells that a particular runway CAT I ILS approach can be 3D Type A if its  DH is above 250' . isn't?

According to EASA Part Air Operations (GM3 CAT.OP.MPA.182(c))
•   Amongst other things the lowest DH for an instrument approach operation is determined by the system minima for the facility and the obstacle clearance height (OCH). The resulting DH determines the type of approach operation (type A or B).
•   If the DH is 250 ft or more, it will be a type A approach operation; if the DH is less than 250 ft, it will be a type B approach operation.
•   So, while ILS approaches to most runways may be conducted as type B approach operations, difficult obstacle situations, driving up the DH to 250 ft or higher, will result in type A approach operations.

The new system is quite disturbing.
My following thoughts will be in force October 30th 2022...
Step 1: Discover type of approach A or B.
In your example given in LIRN, your DH is 395ft.
According to EASA 965/2012 definition (120d & 120e) [Amendmt. 2021-2237].
The key number here is DH, if DH is at or above 250 is type A, if DH is lower is type B.
Conclusion step 1: your approach has to be classified as Type A.
Step 2: kind of instrument approach procedure
Same regulation and amendment but different definition. Now we are playing with definition 69e.
On type A we've got 3 different kind of approach procedures (NPA, APV or PA)
NPA is 2D approach, APV is 3D approach based on PBN and PA is 3D approach with conventional aids or SBAS.
Conclusion step 2: it is clearly a 3D approach based on conventional aids (ILS).
So you're approach should be Type A - PA approach.
Hopping it's help a bit.

Welcome to aviation.SE. I'm sorry, but this is unclear to me: "My following thoughts will be in force October 30th 2022" what do you mean?

That looks wrong... it's either an A, or a B (NPA), B (APV) or a B(PA). If it's an A it's just an A - only B has the 3 different subclasses.

There is an amendment in AIR-OPS (2021-2237). Authority published the docs well before the entry in force of the new amendment. This amendment then is now in force.

Hi Ralph J, I've just read again def 69e. I am still agree with what I wrote.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What does "outside controlled airspace above 1200ft AGL" mean?
I came across the following question when prepping for my PPL written exam:
"During operations outside controlled airspace at altitudes of more than 1,200 feet AGL, but less than 10,000 feet MSL, the minimum flight visibility for daytime VFR flight is: "
And the choices were a) 1 SM b) 3 SM c) 5 SM.
I know that B,C,D,E are controlled and G is uncontrolled. But I thought that "outside controlled airspace" just meant we are not in the vicinity of an airport especially since they mention more than 1200ft AGL. Versus we are in class G airspace.
Class E typically exists everywhere from 1200ft AGL up to 18000ft MSL. Everything below that 1200ft AGL mark is class G. I am aware of cases like 700ft AGL or some other height AGL if specified, but I'm ignoring those for the purpose of this question.
I figured since the question makes the effort to say more 1200ft AGL, this probably means that we're operating in class E airspace (despite saying "outside controlled") away from an airport. Hence, I picked B) 3 SM.
But the right answer was 1 SM. The explanation was that outside controlled airspace meant class G.
What did I misunderstand? How should I have reconciled the two bits of information: outside controlled airspace and more than 1200 ft AGL?

What has four legs, a pillow and a brick?  A bed - the brick is there to make it harder.

In other words, the answer to the question is easy but the question is designed to make you doubt yourself.

That’s Class G airspace and at night it’s 3 statute miles visibility and in the day 1 sm visibility. § 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums.

@JScarry -- guess I missed the obvious; you are right of course

Can we assume that you are not flying a helicopter?

Yes I am not flying a helicopter @quietflyer

You can go ahead and fix the question rather just adding the note at the end; the sole existing answer has already been modified to reflect the change-- I appreciate the sensitivity around invalidating existing answers but in this case you can go ahead and make the change--

(I went ahead and made the change)

This answer will assume from the context of the question, that the question pertains to the airspace of the United States.  This answer will also assume that the question pertains to airplanes, or other aircraft that are not helicopters.  Note that the answer would be different for helicopters.
The test question was:

During operations outside controlled airspace at altitudes of more than 1,200 feet AGL, but less than 10,000 feet MSL, the minimum flight visibility for daytime VFR flight is:

The correct answer is "1 statute mile".  You are flying in uncontrolled airspace-- meaning Class G airspace-- in the daytime.  See FAR 91.155- Basic VFR weather minimums.

What does "outside controlled airspace above 1200ft AGL" mean?

"Outside controlled airspace" means "in uncontrolled airspace", which means "in Class G airspace".  You seem to doubt that any Class G airspace exists above 1200' AGL, but it does.
Controlled airspace with a floor at 1200' AGL only exists where it is needed to protect specific airways, instrument approaches and departures, etc.  Now, it so happens that over time, this has led to very few places remaining in the lower 48 states where controlled airspace has a floor higher than 1200' AGL, but a few such places do still exist.  See for example this related ASE question: What are concrete examples for class G up to 14500?.  And Alaska, such airspace is more common-- See for example this related ASE question: What is the purpose of this interesting pattern of class E airspace in northwest Alaska?
If you are wondering-- "Why is it so complicated?  Why bother to have those few little slivers of Class G airspace with that extend higher than 1200' AGL?  And why have two phrases -- 'uncontrolled airspace' and 'Class G airspace'-- with the same meaning?"  Well, it's a situation that has slowly evolved over time.  If you had a "magic map" that could scroll back through time, and you slowly scrolled back through the last seventy years or so, you'd see more and more areas where the low-level airspace was "uncontrolled", until eventually the only low-level "controlled" airspace would be small, mostly circular, shapes around some airports, plus a network of airways.  You'd also notice that prior to 1993, the "alphabet" naming system did not exist.
If you want to get more insight into the vast collection of different individual pieces of Class E controlled airspace with floors at 700' or 1200' AGL, that now have multiplied to cover nearly the entire country, view the FAA's "Airspace Designations and Reporting Points" document, current edition JO 7400.11F.  Section 6005, starting on page E-224 and running through page E-989, lists the "E5" Class E airspace areas which normally have floors at 700' AGL, and section 6006, running from page E-990 through E-1008, lists the "E6" Class E airspace areas which normally have floors at 1200' AGL.  Sections 6009 through 6011, running from pages E-1018 through E-1164, list the Federal Airways and Area Navigation Routes, which normally have Class E floors at 1200' AGL. Note the large range of different dates as to when the airspaces were created or last amended.  So that's 175 pages to describe the Class E airspaces with floors at 1200' AGL.  Yes, it certainly would take many fewer pages, if the document simply specified that "Class E Controlled airspace always begins at 1200' AGL or lower, except in these specified areas", and then listed the few remaining "hold-outs" that have managed to "slip through the cracks"!

But I thought that "outside controlled airspace" just meant we are not
in the vicinity of an airport

That is not correct.
You seem to have some confusion around how the concept of "controlled airspace" relates to towered airports.  You should not use "controlled airspace" as a synonym for "the airspace around an airport with a control tower".  They are not the same at all.  Also, be aware of the ambiguity around the phrase "controlled airport".  The phrase "controlled airport" most properly means "an airport with surface-level controlled airspace", not "an airport with a control tower".  It is often used otherwise, but this is arguably incorrect.  Due to this ambiguity, it's a good practice to avoid using the phrase "controlled airport" altogether.
Again, it is informative to look back through history.  Originally, the phrase "control airport" or "controlled airport" was used to describe airports surrounded by "control zones", where higher cloud clearance and visibility requirements were imposed on VFR pilots (or "contact" pilots, to use the old term) to protect IFR (instrument) traffic.  These "control zones" have evolved into today's surface-level Class E airspaces, Class D airspaces, etc.  But there never was a direct correlation between airports listed as "controlled airports", and towered airports, where VFR pilots were required to get clearances, or establish communications, before entry.  Many "controlled airports" had no control towers.  And a few towered airports had no "control zones" and therefore did not appear on the list of "controlled airports", yet VFR pilots were required to establish communications with the tower before entering the "Airport Traffic Area" around the airport. That's why the most correct meaning of the term "controlled airport" is still "an airport with surface-level controlled airspace".
Although the test question doesn't mention airports, this ambiguity around the phrase "controlled airport" may have contributed to your confusion.

Some CFIs incorrectly teach that class E is “uncontrolled” because VFR pilots do not need a clearance, which isn’t corrected until the student gets to IFR training. This question’s wording appears targeted at that error.

I wish I could +1 multiple times, in particular for mentioning that "controlled/uncontrolled" and "towered/non-towered" are not synonymous! Not sure how 7–1–1 comes into it though—did you mean 7–5–1a2?

@quietflyer I made a slight edit to my question. I mistyped the question. The original question said day VFR flight. Hence, I picked 3 SM thinking it was class E. But the right answer was 1 SM because it was class G during daytime. Nonetheless, the points in your question address my main confusion of "uncontrolled over 1200 AGL"

@Jonathan -- got it-- normally questions aren't supposed to be changed in a way that invalidates an existing answer, but I don't think anyone minds this time.  I'll edit my answer when I get a chance.

I have a similar question and i'd love to get your wide expertise on that question as well.  https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/91022/what-frequency-to-use-in-airports-under-class-c

@Jonathan -- I would support randomhead's answer to that one.

@Randomhead-- I meant 7-5-1, specifically 7-5-1 (a) (1).  But the change in the question to daytime has made the SVFR considerations irrelevant (which they probably were all along) so I've now deleted that content.


text:
Which airport is the busiest general aviation airport in the world?
Which airport in the world has the highest amount of flight training and general aviation traffic? I am wondering for year-long traffic totals rather than temporary spikes in traffic due to airshows or similar events.

US
According to General Aviation News in Feb 2020 that would be Van Nuys in California.

Van Nuys Airport (KVNY), Van Nuys, California: 155,420 local GA operations + 332,117 itinerant GA operations = 487,537.
Phoenix Deer Valley (DVT), Phoenix, Arizona: 130,886 local operations + 243,075 itinerant = 373,961.
Centennial Airport (KAPA), Denver, Colorado: 153,744 local operations + 133,098 itinerant = 286,842.
Ernest A. Love Field (KPRC), Prescott, Arizona: 177,233 local operations + 85,290 itinerant = 262,523.
Long Beach Airport-Daugherty Field (KLGB), Long Beach, California: 151,912 local operations + 101,734 itinerant = 253,646.
Portland-Hillsboro Airport (KHIO), Portland, Oregon: 160,261 local GA operations + 83,381 itinerant = 243,642.
Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (KIWA), Phoenix, Arizona: 166,519 local operations + 66,727 itinerant = 233,246.
Falcon Field (KFFZ), Mesa, Arizona: 175,051 local + 53,307 itinerant = 228,358.
Grand Forks International Airport (KGFK), Grand Forks, N.D.: 212,325 local + 12,634 itinerant = 224,959.
Gillespie Field (KSEE), San Diego/El Cajon, California: 140,189 local + 68,061 itinerant = 208,250.

Source: https://generalaviationnews.com/2020/02/03/top-10-busiest-general-aviation-airports/
Anecdotally; although not American, I just realised I learned to fly at the 5th busiest GA airfield in the US. Mind blown!
UK
Contrast this to the UK, which has a fairly busy GA scene:

Official Civil Aviation Authority statistics have revealed that Gloucestershire Airport at Staverton was amongst the busiest in the UK during 2011, with the majority of the traffic being GA aircraft  [...] Gloucestershire appears at number 13 in the list of 64 UK commercial airports, handling 66,715 flights during the year -- just pipping Bristol and beating other major regional airports such as Newcastle and Belfast.

As you can see the UK's busiest GA airfield doesn't even come close to the US' 10th busiest.
Australia
Not so easy to find a list, and there is more than one contender for busiest
Jandakot deems itself to be busiest by movements:

Jandakot Airport is "the busiest general aviation airport in Australia in terms of aircraft movements". The airport recorded 208,778 aircraft movements in the fiscal year ending 30 June 2018

Moorabbin seems to be the busier by aircraft movements, and is clearly a strong contender.

With over 295,000 aircraft movements each year, Moorabbin Airport is the second busiest airport in Australia. [...] Moorabbin Airport is Australia’s leading general aviation flight training airport located in the south-east of Melbourne.

Have you found any on flight training as well?

Interestingly, Australia's busiest GA airport (Moorabbin, YMMB) with its ~250K movements will easily make it into the list. And there are three others with a similar figure (220K+).

@Zeus I'll add some details on Australia, unless you want to.


text:
What notification am I required to give when starting an engine?
This question is related to a single-engined piston-powered airplane.
I was at a small airport. I noticed another plane parked behind mine. The pilot/owner was in the process of covering up his plane. I walked up to my plane, did some preflight checks, entered the cockpit, did my engine start checks, shouted as loudly as I could - PROP CLEAR - waited a few seconds and then started the engine. A few seconds later the other pilot walked up to me and was enraged that I had started the engine without notifying him. I told him that I shouted but he claims he didn't hear me.

What is the correct procedure/etiquette in this situation?
Was I supposed to walk up to him and notify him before starting the engine?

I think the correct etiquette would be to pull your plane out of the tiedown or wait until he has finished. You don’t want the prop blast to blow his cover away or blow dirt onto him. Like @Dave says in his answer below,  you want to keep junk from flying into cars, hangars, people, and other airplanes as much as possible.

shouted as loudly as I could - PROP CLEAR - waited a few seconds and
  then started the engine.

Something to note here. While your shouting of PROP CLEAR was correct you need to Look Up and ensure no one is around when starting your engine. This is a common mistake, however you can bust a check ride for only shouting and not looking.

Was I supposed to walk up to him and notify him before starting the engine?

According to the FAA handbook, yes you should have alerted him and/or waited for him to clear the area.

Prior to engine start, the pilot must ensure that the ramp area
  surrounding the airplane is clear of persons, equipment, and other
  hazards from coming into contact with the airplane or the propeller.
  Also, an awareness of what is behind the airplane prior to engine
  start is standard practice. A propeller or other engine thrust can
  produce substantial velocities, result in damage to property, and
  injure those on the ground. The hazard of debris being blown into
  persons or property must be mitigated by the pilot. A

I did Look Up after shouting PROP CLEAR. Thats why I waited a few seconds. Thanks for pointing me to the FAA Handbook. I guess I was wrong. In all instances before this, I had always started engines when there was no one behind me.

@PrashantSaraswat Just noting the look up for others that may read the answer (it was pointed out to me by my DPE prior to my check ride actually).

It's worth pointing out you should be shouting outside of the aircraft, so many times I've seen people "shout" inside the aircraft with all the doors and windows closed. With all light aircraft it's so easy to open a door or a window and project your shout outside of the aircraft.

Yes, there is a small window in the Piper Dakota. I always shout out of the aircraft.

He may or may not hear you from 30 feet away to the rear.  In any case, in that situation it's more of a courtesy thing than a safety one. The callout is more for people that could be near the propeller.  When you see a guy in the middle of trying to put covers on his plane directly behind you, you should anticipate that your propeller wake is going to cause some grief, warning or not.  You should've waited until he was done or moved the plane by hand to point it away, or if you really want to make friends in aviation, which goes a long way on the long run, gone over and offered to help if it was a two person job being done by one.

You are right. I understand I made a mistake and will be more careful in the future.

With that attitude, you have a bright future!  I once taxied across a ramp in a rental 172 way too fast.  That fact kind of dawned on me after parking as I spied the airport manager marching toward me with steam coming out his ears.  As he was about to start dressing me down, I cut him off and said "I know why you are here; I was going way too fast.  Sorry and it won't happen again.".  He said "OK great. Thanks." and walked off in a much better mood.


text:
Alternate for jet fuel
At some point maybe after around 8 to 10 decades we may end up with a situation where the crude oil wells get drained up due to massive extraction and increasing demand for gasoline and ATF. What would be the another option for the conventional fuel system?
Some of the prototypes like solar impulse, explorer etc. are for small light weight aircraft.  What about the massive aircraft like the Boeing 707,747 Airbus a380 and fighter jets.
My point is can't we make something like nuclear propelled aircraft? By designing some kind of miniature size of reactor or maybe any other way of non conventional propulsion system to over come the future oil crisis.

There has already been a nuclear powered aircraft, done 50 years ago or so.

How happy are you to sit inside a metal tube with a nuclear reactor?

Some bedtime reading for you all about alternate fuel sources in aviation linked for you :)

It is very technically straightforward (but energy intensive) to turn methane or coal into usable jet fuel. It will cost more than conventional fuels, but can be made in any desired quantity. Look at what the company Sasol has done in coal to liquids at large scale.


text:
When is my biennial flight review due?
I logged into my flying club's online scheduling website today (May 19, 2015) and it was warning me that my Flight Review was about to expire (on May 31, 2015). My last flight review was on June 7, 2013.
According to 14 CFR 61.56 (c), the look-back period runs from (my emphasis added):

... the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in
  which that pilot acts as pilot in command ...

So am I right in calculating that my last Flight Review is actually valid through June 30, 2015?

Yes. Your interpretation is the correct one. Several FAA legal interpretations cover the "calendar months" phrasing; the best I could find was the Harvey interpretation from 2012:

Based on the facts that you have presented, a biennial flight review accomplished on April 2, 2002, would not lapse until May 1, 2004.

Basically, your flight review is legal until the end of the month (ie, June, or August) it was completed in two years before. The same calendar logic applies to maintenance like the annual inspection.

As far as the FAA is concerned, your Flight Review is valid.
You may be running into a case where flight clubs can and often do create their own, more stringent rules.
They can require a BFR within two years, so you don't get the extra fractional-month grace period.
They could even require some currency-demonstration every few months!
Their planes, their rules.


text:
Why do helicopter flights not appear in online flight trackers?
Currently in Indianapolis, IN (19 Mar 2015, ~08:00 EDT -4GMT), there is some sort of big kerfuffle downtown, and I can see 3 helicopters hovering over the near west-side of the downtown area. However, FlightRadar24 for the area doesn't seem to show them at all.
It's dim enough that I couldn't make out the markings on the choppers before I went inside, but at least one or two are local news stations, and the third is either another news station or a police chopper. They are in the (normal) flight path of Indianapolis International (KIND) runways 23L and 23R, though I'm sure they're below the approach altitudes.
Why are they not squawking something that would be picked up on either FlightRadar24, FlightAware or similar flight tracking web sites?
Update: It does appear that they're not using RWY 23 this morning, but are using RWY 5L and 5R.

FlightRadar and similar websites use several sources for aircraft detection, most commonly they use ADS-B. Not all General Aviation aircraft, to which helicopters would count normally, are equipped with transponders that are capable of emitting ADS-B data, so they would not show via regular means on FlightRadar.

The primary technology that Flightradar24 use to receive flight information is called automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B).
ADS-B is a relatively new technology under development which means that today it's rarely used by Air Traffic Control (ATC). Our estimations show that roughly 65% of all commercial passenger aircraft (75% in Europe, 35% in the US) are equipped with an ADS-B transponder. For general aviation this number is probably below 20%. But this percentage is steadily increasing as ADS-B will become mandatory for most aircraft in most airspaces around the world, by year 2020. When mandatory, ADS-B will replace primary radar as the primary surveillance method used by ATC.
Flightradar24 has a network of more than 4,000 ADS-B receivers around the world that receives plane and flight information from aircraft with ADS-B transponders and sends this information to our servers. Due to the high frequency used (1090 MHz) the coverage from each receiver is limited to about 250-400 km (150-250 miles) in all directions depending on location. The farther away from the receiver an aircraft is flying, the higher it must fly to be covered by the receiver. The distance limit makes it very hard to get ADS-B coverage over oceans.
About 99% of Europe is covered with ADS-B receivers. There is also good ADS-B coverage in USA, Canada, Mexico, Caribbean, Brazil, Russia, Middle East, India, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. In other parts of the world the ADS-B coverage varies.

The other option is to receive the regular Mode-S transponder signal by a technique called Multilateration (MLAT), however the FlightRadar website states that this is something that only works reliably at high altitude, at least 5 000 to 10 000 ft.

In some regions with coverage from several FR24-receivers we also calculate positions of non-ADS-B equipped aircraft with the help of Multilateration (MLAT), by using a method known as Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA). By measuring the difference in time to receive the signal from aircraft with an older ModeS-transponder, it's possible to calculate the position of these aircraft. Four FR24-receivers or more, receiving signals from the same aircraft, are needed to make MLAT work. That means that MLAT coverage can only be achieved above about 5,000-10,000 feet as the probability that signal can be received by four or more receivers increases with increased altitude.
Most parts of Europe are today covered with MLAT above about 5,000-10,000 feet. There is also some MLAT coverage in North America, Mexico, Australia and Brazil. More areas will get MLAT coverage during 2014 and 2015.

For more information, check FlightRadar's "How it works" page.

That's interesting. I would not have thought a news or police helicopter would be considered "General Aviation", though I suppose that if it's not revenue generating it falls into the GA category? My assumption would be that since they are flown by professional pilots (i.e. paid to fly the bird), by some sort of commercial organization (news station), that would take them out of GA. I guess I'm wandering off into a whole new question here.

@FreeMan Even if you do not count them to General Aviation but to commercially operated aircraft, it is still a question of equipment. If they are not ADS-B equipped, then there will be nothing to feed into the website of FlightRadar. And hovering below 5.000ft does not make them visible through MLAT. There is few cases where a news or police helicopter would climb to altitudes above 5.000ft.

Gotcha - and since ADS-B isn't required in FAA-land quite yet, these helicopters may not have been updated yet.

@FreeMan Many GA flights generate revenue in some way: flight instruction, private charters, aerial surveying, banner towing, pipeline inspections, air ambulances etc. The usual (loose) definition is that if a flight operates on a regular schedule and anyone can buy a ticket then it's an airline operation; everything else is GA.

So. Much. To. Learn.  Thanks.

I'm seeing more police helicopters using ADS-B.  In LA, I've started seeing maybe 3 or 4 at least.  E.g. you can see several helicopters in https://imgur.com/MAjkVIA (the circular orbits).

@jan-hudec Thanks for the edit, reading comprehension fail there it seems. :)

@Pondlife Interestingly, by that definition, Air Force One is GA.

@MichaelKjörling Well I did say it's a very loose definition :-) Practically speaking, I'd consider it a military flight. ICAO has a "head of state" status for use in flight plans, BTW.

One additional point on police, coast guard, and air ambulance helicopters. They don't transmit location on ADS, just call sign. I went out to the waterfront when the Guard was doing a search for a boater after the boat he was on missed the opening in the break wall. I could see the helicopter less than a mile away and my setup that picks up planes 200nm away was telling me his call sign on 1090. I know they are up because I flag their calls, but that is all I see.
Regular tourist helicopters are completely visible. I see them flying the proscribed route for particular attractions all of the time.

From the ADS-B Wikipedia page:
By 2020, all aircraft operating in the US airspaces listed below
will be required to carry equipment that produces an ADS-B Out broadcast.

The FAA has published a rule requiring ADS-B transmitters in many
types of airspace (ADS-B Out) to take effect on January 1, 2020,
but there is no mandate for ADS-B In, which receives data and
provides it to in-cockpit displays.[33] The FAA airspace requirements
intentionally exclude some airspace that is frequently used by general
aviation.

So it certainly seem that you will soon see more helicopters using this. I would assume because of the recent explosion of drones, that some modifications to these rules will come to include them as well.


text:
Is there a public database for annual flights by aircraft type?
I am doing research about the number of flights and distance flown performed by aircraft types, in a given year. For example:
There were X A320-200 flights, flying an average distance of Y nautical miles, in the year Z.

I know that these records are kept for all registered flights, so I am wondering if there is a database where one can find such info?
I am looking for data of as many regional flight airliners as possible.

Short answer is "no". There is no such thing as a "registered" flight.
In cases where pilots have filed flight plans, you could aggregate that data. It would be a BIG programming project. There are commercial services that analyze flight plan data. They might be willing to help you for a price that would be in the 10's of thousands of dollars.
Flight plan data would only be good for US information. Other countries would require other data collection.
Small planes usually don't file flight plans, but you may not care about this.
Aircraft manufacturers estimate how much their planes fly around. Whether they would be willing to share this data with you, I don't know.

Thanks Tyler. After doing some searching I found out that ICAO have been keeping good records from the 70's. Access to the data costs about $1000 per year for flight traffic details only, which isn't too bad I suppose.

And I also found that IATA has a substantial amount of statistics available on just this.


text:
Where I can get historical jet fuels prices?
I would like to analyze jet fuels prices in 2014.
Where can I get jet fuel prices for 2014, only in USA and Russia?
As there are different types of fuels, it would be okay to get prices for one (believe, trends are the same) or for all types.

Quite good question that should also be on open data.SE

U.S. Energy Information Administration keeps tabs on most refined and crude prices including kerosene-type jet fuel. For those who hail from metric units' land, these are in dollars per gallon.

Eek! Why not a log graph?

@bjb568 - oil companies would have liked a straight log graph. Pilots and passengers, not so much.

I'll bet that is nearly the same pattern as the regular oil price the news reports... didn't see that on the site, but interesting that AvGas & MoGas were the same price in 1980, now AvGas is 30% more...

Although they don't have historical prices, AirNav has a number of ways to view Jet A fuel prices here.
You might write them and ask if they will release historical prices to you.

Here is the data for Russian airports (unfortunately, in Russian).

...and for anyone looking for historical data before 1975 (which is when the data series at the US Energy Information Agency starts), FRED provides the authoritative dataset:


text:
Is there any application where the crescent wing would be the best wing planform?
To my knowledge the only aircraft featuring a crescent wing that was built in numbers was the Handley Page Victor.
It seems that a crescent wing offers the possibility of a high subsonic/transonic aircraft with a thick wing root but not too much drag at the root. It seems that a crescent wing would work well at airliner speeds.

Why there were not more crescent wing aircraft been built?
Why are they not used on airliners?
Is there any application where a crescent wing would be an ideal or even a good solution?

wikipedia--"The crescent wing is a fixed-wing aircraft configuration in which a swept wing has a greater sweep angle on the inboard section than the outboard, giving the wing a crescent shape." -- why is that called a "crescent"?  The moon a few days past new is often called a "crescent", and if that planform were used for a wing, the tips would be swept more than the inboard portions.

@quietflyer, look at the photo on the linked Wikipedia page, each wing is a crescent arcing forward.  I get what you are saying though, I wouldn't call it crescent either, unless the planform of both wings formed a crescent shape...

You are right, it helps to de-sweep the outer wing. The main advantages are (read this Flight article from 1965 here for a much more detailed explanation):

An identical critical Mach number over the whole span as sweep is reduced together with relative thickness.
A smooth cross-section distribution in the direction of flow which helps to reduce transsonic drag.
A tendency to pitch up in ground effect such that the wing will essentially land itself, especially when combined with a T-tail.

However, as long as wings are made of aluminum, the manufacturing effort is significantly higher.
The basic problem is the needed two-dimensional bending of the skin panels. Using a straight spar line and a straight leading edge requires bending only in one dimension, but when sweep changes, the skin panels would need to stretch in some corners while being bent. This requires much more expensive tooling, or a break in the structure which increases structural mass.
Even one composite wing I know of has a straight leading edge, even though the aircraft would have benefited from de-sweeping. Both the TKF-90 and the X-31, which were designed by the same people before, had reduced sweep on the outer wing, and for good reason. When the multinational project started and they talked to the BAe engineers, the British side insisted on a straight leading edge for easier manufacture, ignorant of the fact that using composites made their point moot. Yes, that was practically the same company that had built the Victor before.
Another disadvantage is the fact that any sweep change will convert bending moment into torsion. Normally, this reduces the incidence of the outer wing when a swept-back wing is bending under lift loads. De-sweeping the outer wing will introduce an uptwisting torsion which can cancel the torsion from sweep-back, and Handley Page claimed that the Victor wing was close to aero-isoclinic. However, this reduces flutter damping, resulting in a lower wing flutter speed (PDF!). If the wing's aspect ratio is low, this is manageable, but with higher aspect ratios the wing needs to be stiffened.
To answer your question directly: In the majority of cases it is aerodynamically advantageous to vary sweep with relative thickness, but it is not structurally and economically efficient. In the delta wings of combat aircraft which need to operate over a wide range of angles of attack, de-sweeping the outer wing produces indeed the best wing planform, even when economics is included.

Is it correct to say the compound delta is a crescent design at heart? I was under the impression the higher sweep angle at the root was more to do with vortex control and the extensions at the end for better aileron performance.

@MauryMarkowitz: Both your points are correct, each at a specific angle of attack region. It is the combination of all the benefits which makes the compound delta so attractive for fighter aircraft. And yes, the compound delta is one variant of a crescent wing.

The Avro Vulcan B2 also featured higher sweep angles at the wing root.  In modern aircraft, while not as extreme as the Victor, the Boeing 737 also incorporates a slightly higher sweep angle at the wing root than at the tip.

One of the reasons the Victor engineers chose this was that the more extreme sweep angle enabled the design team to house engines and landing gear near the wing root since they could make that section fatter without incurring additional drag.  This video ("HP80 Victor V Bomber Construction: The Crescent Wing") explains some of the science behind it, plus a good explanation of stall conditions as they develop based on different wing geometries.
The most probable cause for non-development in this arena is because it's more expensive to fly faster.  As noted in this question, Mach 0.8-0.85 seems to be the sweet spot.  And on that subject, Peter's answer has a good idea why.

When you look at leading edge sweep, you are correct. But if you look at the sweep angle of the quarter-point line (where the angle-of-attack-dependent lift forces act), the 737 wing has constant sweep. And thanks for the video link. This movie puts 99% of what is shown today on Discovery channel to utter shame!

Cool video but...it was downright eerie at the end seeing the model of the HP97 with those square windows...looking a lot like the Comet...and hearing him say it "will bring the advantages of the crescent wing to civil aviation." "It will cross the Atlantic three times a day." Really, really eerie.

The video link is broken, I checked youtube for the title, but there are several candidates. Could you update the link?

@ROIMaison Link updated. Thanks!


text:
Do any UK universities include PPL/Commercial flight training as part of an aviation degree?
I recently became interested in becoming a commercial pilot after buying Flight Simulator X and a Saitek Yoke system. I'm still studying my GCSE's, and I am now debating between computer science and a career as a pilot.
I currently don't have the money to get my private pilot license, and very much doubt that I'll have the money for commercial training in the future. Therefore, I am curious as to whether or not some universities offer both PPL and commercial flight training as part of an aviation degree program.

In the UK I am not sure, but in Australia some universities offer a Bachelor of Aviation including a flying component. But through a university is not the only way to become a pilot here. Are you only after UK-based answers, or would you consider studying overseas?

I'd prefer to study in the UK, but overseas could be considered, if I fail to find a placement in the UK.

So are you looking for. UK answer? Or an answer for UK or US?

UK answer please @rbp

Here an easy choice. If you LOVE flying, and aviation is your life then (and only then) become a pilot. If you want to earn a good wage, and dont mind sitting in an office for the next 50+ years do computer science.

I know of none in the UK however if you are looking for inexpensive flight training then a few people I know started with joining the University Air Squadron and got subsidised training through the RAF.
However I would suggest learning to glide, many gliding clubs offer cheap tuition to young people, my club runs a cadet scheme with bursaries available. Once you have learned to fly gliders you can progress onto powered flight, progress being a matter of opinion as a lot of pilots in my club are commercial pilots who glide for the fun of flying rather than the more restrictive airline flying.

One UK list is here, it mentions several universities that include PPL and/or ATPL training in the degree course, but they appear to cover only the theory part of the courses with actual flight training being optional. Where a full PPL is included, they mention extra costs of around GBP 7000 on top of regular tuition.
If you look directly at the university sites they seem to confirm this: Leeds includes only 10 flight hours for the PPL; Brunel and Salford both include a UK NPPL but at extra cost.
You might be able to get a scholarship of some kind to cover all or part of your tuition, but that depends very heavily on your personal situation and what the individual university offers. Finally, you could consider the RAF as an alternative route to paid flight training but I have no idea if that's of any interest to you and I imagine that competition for cockpit places is very tough.

would the £7000 be included in a student loan, or would I have to pay separately?

@user3166976 I have no idea, you'd have to research that with the university or the student loan company. Your school might be able to help you with some general information about it.

My experience in the UK is that flight training is filled with lots of potentially exploitative corporations. The £7k would probably be out of your own pocket, and the NPPL is a limited form of the full PPL that you'd then need to acquire anyway. Your best bet for your education is to do a relevant subject you enjoy and are good at a University with an Air Squadron, and get the RAF to pay you to learn to fly!

I don't know about if that is possible in the UK. However, in Spain it can be done at CESDA (at Reus airport LERS) which is linked to the URV (Universitat Rovira i Virgili), they accept students from all over Europe and they can be validate the corresponding high school exams for most of the countries (probably not all of them, but surely UK can).
If you want to see further information you can check out this link and read all the information but basically the most important features of the program are the following:

The aim of the Degree in Commercial Airline Pilot and Air Operations is to prepare future professionals to adapt more easily to the exacting demands of the labour market, obtaining the EASA European license for commercial pilots with all the qualifications required for the “Frozen ATPL”.
After graduation students will have completed a total of 285 flight hours, of which 171 are real flight hours, 54h on a basic simulator and 60h in the Multi Crew Cooperation (MCC) simulator.

I hope this helps, if you're considering studying outside of the UK.

This is not strictly an answer to the question, but in order to satisfy your desires you should look at University Air Squadrons. UAS are attached to UK Universities, and function like an extracurricular activity. Essentially you join the Air Force Reserve for the duration of your degree, in in return the Air Force teaches you to fly free, gratis and for nothing. The training is equivalent to at least PPL standard plus quite a bit more, but not Commercial License standard.
There is no obligation to join the RAF after you graduate, but you will have to pass medical and fitness tests (which are unlikely to be a problem if you want to be a pilot anyway). There is no restriction on the subject you study, so you can follow your computing training desires.
The list of UAS universities is given in the link.


text:
How is non-standard OAT accounted for?
This pdf from Airbus has a chart from ICAO showing the amount of correction to be applied to altimeter readings for temperatures below 0°C.

Do aircraft with flight data computers automatically correct for this?
In the US, does ATC account for this correction when assigning vectors?
How does a pilot know if they are or not?

@Jan Thanks for the link. I think I get it: the QNH will be correct at the field, but cold air increases the pressure gradient so error will accumulate at altitudes above the field. Is that correct?

Related. When flying across a pressure gradient - "high to low, look out below" (the altimeter will progressively read higher than the real altitude), "low to high, look up to the sky" (the alimeter will read progressively lower).

The previous comment was removed, so: the phenomenon itself is well explained here. Yes, it means altimeter will read correctly at the field, but error will increase with altitude.

Related: Do instrument approach procedures sometimes have a minimum temperature?. (Yes, they do).

Thy PDF link breaketh.

We all know the saying "From High to Low, Look out below"  Some were taught that this only applied to pressure differences and thus were instructed to get a new altimeter setting every 100NM or so.  This is a good recommendation.
Temperature differences from standard also causes errors with the altimeter.  The same saying above holds true with temperature variations.
An altimeter setting is defined as: (ref. Pilot/Controller Glossary)

The barometric pressure reading used to adjust a pressure altimeter for variations in existing atmospheric pressure or to the standard altimeter setting (29.92).

We also know there is a direct correlation between pressure and temperature and thus an altimeter setting is corrected for both pressure and temperature.  This means one thing, the altimeter error is zero at the field elevation.  As the aircraft gets climbs higher above the field, the altimeter error will increase.
There is a table in the Aeronautical Information Manual (7-2-8) that lists altimeter error due to temperature as a function of altitude (AGL) and temperature.

Here is the formula that will give you this table.  The formula can be found in Canadian Aeronautical Information Manual (RAC section).

The United States Air Force has a PowerPoint that discusses this topic.

The FAA has recently come out with Info 15002 which requires pilots (after 9/17/2015) who fly into "Cold Temperature Restricted Airports" to correct their altitudes for colder than standard temperatures.  To determine if your airport is part of this program you must go to the Aeronav FAA website and search for Cold Temperature Restricted Airports.  There should be a link at the bottom of the page.
Here is a graphic showing all the airports in the United States that were part of the program in February 2015.

Because Lnafziger wanted Alaska.

Not only is the pilot required to correct for the segment but they are also required to inform ATC of the new altitudes they will fly.  This is to ensure traffic separation with other airplanes who are not temperature correcting their altimeters.

Pictures taken with permission from All About Airplanes blog.  All rights reserved.

Also, some aircraft / FMS's do offer automatic cold temperature compensation, and ATC does not compensate (as you said, the pilot is required to),  to finish answering his questions.

Last question, where did you get the graphics?  (You should link to the original for proper attribution.)

From ICAO (sorry can't remember word-to-word, but close): Temperature correction must be made to all minimum altitudes at and below MSA when station temperature is at or below 0 degrees celsius.
1. Yes, FMS can make the correction, but at least in some versions you have to enable it for each flight. Also a specific approval is needed to use the FMS correction.
2. Followong applies to EU, not sure about US: Under radar control ATC should make the correction. Without radar they don't.
3. If the controller makes the temperature correction, he/she should notify you by adding "temperature correction made by atc" or "temperature corrected" to the clearance. Ie "descend to 3000ft, temperature corrected"


text:
Can time logged in foreign aircraft be applied towards an FAA certificate or rating?
Does time logged in these foreign-registered aircraft (cross country, etc) count towards US certificates or ratings? Or is it flight experience that should be excluded from an 8710?

is this related to, or a dupe of, this question?

@TheWhiteDiamond Definitely related. I think this question is better (more clearly stated) but I also think the answer given to the other question is better than my answer here. One way to handle this (if any handling is even needed) would be to edit the other question to make it closer to this one, then mark this as a dupe. On the other hand it's clear that the other question is primarily about saving money and there are good points in the answers about that being a possible false economy. That consideration is irrelevant here.

@Pondlife Actually I think this question and your answer stand well on their own -- It also neatly answers the question "If I'm a private pilot and I take a vacation in Russia and fly a bunch of cross-country flights in a Yak-52 can I log/count that time toward my cross-country PIC time requirement on the instrument rating?"

Yes, it counts: the FAA doesn't care where flying hours are accumulated provided that the US written and/or practical test requirements are met. I learned to fly in South Africa then applied for an unrestricted FAA license (i.e. not a foreign based license). The FSDO told me that I could count all my time in SA (cross-countries, night flights etc.) towards the FAA license requirements, but I would still have to pass the FAA written and practical tests like any other student pilot.
One practical issue in this situation is that hours may be logged slightly differently in different countries, by regulation or simply by local practice. The two examples I encountered were that PIC time is (was?) defined differently in SA and the US, and the number of landings is not relevant in SA for currency so no one logs them.

This is from FAA website:
(j) Aircraft requirements for logging flight time. For a person to log flight time, the time must be acquired in an aircraft that is identified as an aircraft under §61.5(b), and is—
(1) An aircraft of U.S. registry with either a standard or special airworthiness certificate;
(2) An aircraft of foreign registry with an airworthiness certificate that is approved by the aviation authority of a foreign country that is a Member State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Organization;


text:
Are the requirements for an initial type rating the same across types?
If a pilot wishes to obtain an initial FAA type rating - say, for a Boeing 737 - are the requirements to obtain that rating the same as if they were getting a type rating for an Airbus A320? If they are different, where can these requirements be found?
Assume that in both cases the pilot is ATP-rated.

Actually, it doesn't matter whether you are a Private pilot or an ATP, the requirements for a type rating are in the Airline Transport Pilot and Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test Standards, which apply regardless of the aircraft type.
In the PTS, it says:

Practical Test Book Description
This practical test book contains the Airline Transport Pilot and
  Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test Standards—Airplane.  The Airline
  Transport Pilot and Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test
  Standards—Airplane includes Areas of Operation and Tasks for the
  initial issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate and for the
  addition of category, class, and aircraft type ratings to an airline
  transport pilot certificate. These Areas of Operation and Tasks also
  apply for the issuance of an airplane type rating to a private or
  commercial pilot certificate.

You basically cover everything needed for the ATP.  The differences between the different airplanes come out during the practical test just like they do for any other checkride.  The examiner (who will be typed in the airplane) asks you about the things that are specific to each airplane, but this isn't really a lot different than him asking you questions specific to a Cessna or a Piper during your private pilot checkride.
The PTS specifies general Areas of Operation's instead of saying exactly what needs to be tested for every aircraft type.
Here they are for a type rating:

Section 1: Preflight Preparation
Areas of Operation
I. Preflight Preparation
  Task A: Equipment Examination
  Task B: Performance and Limitations
  Task C: Water and Seaplane Characteristics (AMES/ASES)
  Task D: Seaplane Bases, Maritime Rules, and Aids to Marine Navigation (AMES/ASES)
Section 2: Preflight Procedures, Inflight Maneuvers, and Postflight Procedures
Areas of Operation
II. Preflight Procedures
  Task A: Preflight Inspection
  Task B: Powerplant Start
  Task C: TAXIING
  Task D: Sailing (AMES/ASES)
  Task E: Seaplane Base/Water Landing Site Markings and Lighting (AMES, ASES)
  Task F: Pre-Takeoff Checks
III. Takeoff and Departure Phase
  Task A: Normal and Crosswind Takeoff
  Task B: Glassy Water Takeoff and Climb (AMES/ASES)
  Task C: Rough Water Takeoff and Climb (AMES/ASES)
  Task D: Confined-Area Takeoff and Climb (AMES/ASES)
  Task E: Instrument Takeoff
  Task F: Powerplant Failure during Takeoff
  Task G: Rejected Takeoff
  Task H: Departure Procedures
IV. Inflight Maneuvers
  Task A: Steep Turns
  Task B: Approaches to Stalls and Stall Recovery
  Task C: Powerplant Failure—Multiengine Airplane
  Task D: Powerplant Failure—Single–Engine Airplane
  Task E: Specific Flight Characteristics
  Task F: Recovery from Unusual Attitudes
V. Instrument Procedures
  Task A: Standard Terminal Arrival/Flight Management System Procedures
  Task B: Holding
  Task C: Precision Approaches (PA)
  Task D: Nonprecision Approaches (NPA)
  Task E: Circling Approach
  Task F: Missed Approach
VI. Landings and Approaches to Landings
  Task A: Normal and Crosswind Approaches and Landings
  Task B: Landing from a Precision Approach
  Task C: Approach and Landing with (Simulated) Powerplant Failure—Multiengine Airplane
  Task D: Landing From a Circling Approach
  Task E: Rough Water Approach and Landing (AMES/ASES)
  Task F: Glassy Water Approach And Landing (AMES/ASES)
  Task G: Confined-Area Approach and Landing (AMES/ASES)
  Task H: Rejected Landing
  Task I: Landing from a No Flap or a Nonstandard Flap Approach
VII. Normal and Abnormal Procedures
  Task A: Normal and Abnormal Procedures
VIII. Emergency Procedures
  Task A: Emergency Procedures
IX. Postflight Procedures
  Task A: After-Landing Procedures
  Task B: Anchoring (AMES/ASES)
  Task C: Docking and Mooring (AMES/ASES)
  Task D: Beaching (AMES/ASES)
  Task E: Ramping (AMES/ASES)
  Task F: Parking and Securing


text:
To receive an SVFR clearance, does the airport need to be reporting IFR conditions?
If conditions at a towered airport are not IFR, can pilots request a special VFR clearance? For example, at a Class D airport, ceiling 1300 broken, 10 sm visibility is technically too low to remain in the pattern (assuming a 1000 foot AGL pattern and maintaining at least 500 feet below clouds), yet it is not IFR.
With a Special VFR clearance, the pilot would be able to maintain a 1000 foot pattern and remain clear of clouds. If the pilot requests SVFR, will the tower grant it?

A missed point here is that no one really answered "... will the tower grant it?"  Instead the answers seem to be aimed at, "can they?"
I think if you were inbound and were going to do a single full-stop landing, then yes, if there is no IFR traffic that you would be interfering with.
If you wanted to go up and do 10 touch-and-go's starting from the ground?  Probably no.

A Special VFR (SVFR) clearance may be issued to a pilot when:

The weather is below VFR weather minimums, as reported at the intended airport; OR the weather is above VFR minimums, but "the pilot advises that basic VFR cannot be maintained" (JO 7110.65 7–5–1).
The pilot is able to remain clear of clouds
The pilot has at least one mile flight visibility (other than helicopters) at all times
The pilot is operating (or wants to operate) within the lateral boundaries of the airport surface area
The pilot specifically requests it.
The airport is not among those listed in 14 CFR Part 91, Appendix D (except helicopters)

If the weather is not reported at the airport, the pilot must tell ATC that they are "unable to maintain VFR" and request SVFR.
To answer the question directly: NO, the airport does not need to be reporting less-than-VFR weather conditions in order for a pilot to be issued a Special VFR clearance.

Re "A Special VFR (SVFR) clearance may be issued to a pilot when: The weather is below VFR weather minimums, as reported at the intended airport" -- So do you disagree with this answer-- https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/42449/34686 ?  Perhaps might care to offer a different one?

(Oh-- just noticed your last sentence.  So-- the weather does not actually have to be "below VFR weather minimums" (whatever that means exactly?) for the tower to be able to issue a SVFR clearance?)

@quietflyer-- see my added link to the 7110.65, specifically subpara 7–5–1b. It's there in black-and-white: the WX being less than 1000'/3SM is not a prerequisite for an SVFR clearance.

In Europe, a SVFR clearance may be given when meteorological conditions are below VFR within the control zone of the airport (ceiling below 1,500ft AGL and visibility less than 5km). The clearance can only be given when the aircraft can stay clear of clouds, see the ground and with a minimum surface visibility of 1.5km.
In other words, if the visibility is between 1.5km and 5km and/or the ceiling is between 1,000ft and 1,500fr AGL, a SVFR clearance can be requested. Those conditions are not solid IFR though. Also, SVFR can never be offered to the pilot. The pilot has to explicitly ask for it.
The rules for SVFR are different in the U.S.

does the airport have to have official weather reporting? in the US, if the airport doesn't have official weather, ATC will say something like "no weather available. such-and-such (nearby airport) is reporting ..." and the pilot has to say he is "unable to remain VFR"


text:
Is it required to memorize checklists for better efficiency?
Military pilots are instructed throughout training that they must learn all checklists off-by-heart (in the RAF anyway). This way things get done much quicker, primarily in the event of an emergency when the immediate actions must be performed like 2nd nature.
A recently PPL-qualified pilot friend of mine informed me that he refers to his reference cards for every set of checks. The checks for a Cessna-152 were much much more brief than for military trainers.
I was wondering what the standard is for general aviation, and whether there is a requirement to learn at least engine-failure immediate actions?

This article on memory item checklists in commercial aviation might be of interest to you. There's been a bunch of research on this. A key phrase to search for is "memory items" if you want to read further.

Related: What are the differences between checklists and flows

In the US military we don't necessarily have to memorize them all by heart, but emphasis is definitely placed on speed and efficiency (although accuracy trumps speed and we commonly preach no fast hands in the cockpit, especially during emergencies)

In the US the closest thing to a standard, and the requirement (per the FAA's practical test standards), is that you make appropriate use of checklists.
As mentioned in that video "appropriate" leaves some room for common sense interpretation (clearly your first course of action if your engine dies in flight should not be to open the operating manual to the Engine Failure In Flight checklist and begin reading: That would NOT be "appropriate").
I expect most other countries have a similar view on the subject.

As far as what gets memorized, the checklists for most simple aircraft (for our purposes let's say that's anything with a single piston engine, unpressurized, with 6 seats or less -- your average Piper/Cessna/Citabria/etc.) can be memorized. They're not that long and there's not that many of them.
Time permitting a good pilot will generally still refer to the printed checklist even if they did the entire thing from memory, if only to read off each item and make sure they didn't miss anything.

More complicated checklists (like what you might find on a 737 or a C-130 for example) will usually have a set of Immediate Action Items (often called "Red Box Items" because many manufacturers put them inside a big red box at the top of Emergency or Abnormal checklists).
It's generally expected that the flight crew have the Red Box Items committed to memory and be able to complete essentially on instinct.
After completing the Red Box Items all the really important stuff is done, and there is hopefully enough time that it's now appropriate to pull out the checklist (or Quick Reference Handbook), verify that the Red Box Items have all been done, and run through the rest of the items.

The upside of memorized checklists is that you can execute the checks much more quickly; the downside is that many of the detailed troubleshooting checklists used for non-normal conditions that arise in commercial aviation are much longer than a pilot can reasonably memorize.  However, the idea behind it is sound -- normal checklists are a checklist, not a reference for how to operate the airplane day-to-day.
As a result, commercial operators and private pilots use flows (i.e. a series of control movements, sequenced for efficient performance and checklist compliance) in conjunction with their checklists for normal procedures and memory items, and modern (i.e. "glass cockpit") transport aircraft provide checklist prompts through the ECAM or EICAS display system that are used for non-normal conditions and the non-critical portions of emergency checklists.
See this answer for an excellent example of how an emergency checklist (engine failure) and its matching flow work together in a light aircraft.

I don't know of any standard, but it is definitely a wise idea to learn the emergency procedures very thoroughly. One reason for this is that every flight is different. Even routine stuff like the run-up tends to have some new quirk or difference every time. If you have the checklist down pat, it makes it much easier to deal with whatever unique thing is happening.
During a fire, for example, if you are fumbling with a checklist and do not already know the procedure thoroughly, valuable seconds will be lost while you are reading through the items. You want to know it so well that all you have to do is glance at the item and say "ok now I do this". In other words, the checklist should just be a reminder to what you already know.
In the United States there is no absolute requirement to know the checklists thoroughly ahead of time, but an applicant's likelihood of failing a practical test will definitely increase if they don't, because your chance of making a mistake or getting flustered is greater if you do not know the checklist by rote.
Also, I would note that in US practice you MUST use physical checklist or the FAA examiner will fail you in a test. Memory is not considered an acceptable substitute for a physical checklist by the FAA.


text:
How do pilots manage to remember ATC instructions?
Before takeoff, during flight, before landing and for taxiing, pilots are given several instructions by ATC.
Do they mentally remember all instructions? Or do they note them down somewhere such as in a notebook so that they do not forget?

I write them on my knee board.  Sometimes the instructions are long enough or complex enough that I literally have to just shut off my brain and WRITE what I'm hearing (as opposed to processing it while I listen).  Then of course we have to read them back, so that's a double check that we got it down correctly.  I'm still a relatively low time pilot, so maybe at some point I'll be proficient enough to do it without writing it down, but not yet.  I've also started developing my own "shorthand" I guess.  I have symbols (like arrows and things) that represent common phrases.

@Calphool -- expand that into an answer, and I'll upvote you for it :)

What pilots do depends greatly on the circumstances. For example, if you're flying 6 to 8 legs a day for a commuter airline, you'll find yourself doing it from memory as you pretty much get the same clearance every time. Even flying internationally back in the 1990s, we had what had been filed for us on our paper flight plans. When we got the clearance, we'd just note any differences, which back then at least there usually weren't. Of course, always have paper handy in case they throw something strange at you. See http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009/09/how-to-copy-an-ifr-clearance-like-a-pro/.

Unfortunately, sometimes pilots really do get priorities wrong (not trying to hate on you here, @Calphool), and forget to fly the aircraft while listening or talking to ATC. One of the most imporant rules of flying is aviate, navigat, communicate, in that order! It pisses ATC of when you don't get it right the first time, and that is unfortunate, but I try to not forget to fly the aircraft when writing stuff down, and most of the time I dont write it down, because writing an ILS approach clearance when you are about to intercept the localizer (high workload) just makes you forget other stuff!

I don't feel like it's ignoring "aviate, navigate, communicate" to use a knee board and write things down. What I'm saying is that between splitting time watching out the window and dealing with a clearance or new vector on the radio, sometimes I don't have time to "process" what I just wrote down until after I've written it -- as I'm reading it back... anyway, Martha and John King use a knee board, so all you knee board haters can stick that in your pipe and smoke it.  :-)

It depends.  Some instructions are really simple and with a little practice, are very easy to remember.
Runway 27 right, line-up and wait
Turn left heading 250, descend flight level 120.

Other ones will be so common, they are just remembered:
Taxi to Gate 1 via Alpha, Alpha 1, Lima 3, cross runway 24, hold short Delta.

But this is where the danger creeps in.  It is possible, and has happened, that the crew think they heard something but actually, the instruction was different today.
Taxi to Gate 1 via Alpha, Alpha 3, cross runway 24, hold short Delta.

The prudent crew will write it down.  Large aircraft have tables, or boards clipped to the control column on which to write taxi clearances, complex airways clearances and so on.
In some large aircraft, many light aircraft and in helicopters, pilots might wear a kneeboard to write instructions on.  It is a minor advantage to me that I am left handed and as a helicopter pilot, this means that my kneeboard is on my left leg where I can easily write without taking my hand off the cyclic and having it right next to the collective.

TSGT LANCE CHEUNG, USAF. - This Image was released by the United States Air Force with the ID DF-SD-01-07429
Most instructions come in the same order, every flight.  For example, here is a simplified list.  This happens every time so the crew know what's coming next, what it will likely contain, and how to respond:

Clearance for the flight plan.
Permission to start and push back.
Taxi instructions.
Departure instructions.
Take off clearance.
Hand-off from departure controller to area controller.
etc etc.

Note that any instruction which will cause the aircraft to change it's configuration or location must be repeated.  The controller then also gets to check they've got it right.  This includes things like speed, direction or altitude changes, taxi and departure instructions, frequency and squawk changes etc.
There are also some words which are only ever used at certain times, e.g. "takeoff" is only ever said when an aircraft is cleared to take off.  For example, "ready for departure" tells the controller that the aircraft is prepared to take off immediately.  The crew should not say "ready for takeoff".
You can sometimes hear a pilot receiving a long instruction, start to read it back, pause, then ask for a repeat.  Very frustrating when you are sitting there waiting to get your request in.  You just know they thought they could remember it, but didn't.  Write it down if it's anything except a simple instruction or clearance.
Here's an example of a complex one.

SuperAir 123, cleared to Barcelona via vector departure, fly runway track, climb altitude 5000ft, after passing 2000ft turn right direct Hamm VOR, route as filed, squawk 1234, information Alpha current, startup approved

The crew might write it down like this.  Each pilot develops their own preferred shorthand:

VD RWY TRK 5000 / 2000+ RT HMM / SQ1234 ALPHA / SU

Very brief since they know what each part is and the order they come in.
Since it contains instructions, the crew will then read it back.

Cleared Barcelona via vector departure, runway track 5000ft, after passing 2000ft right direct Hamm, squawk 1234, Alpha on-board, startup approved. SuperAir 123.

Finally, a good reason to write stuff down is because sometimes (and we've all been there), you think you remember, then turn round to your co-pilot 2 minutes later and ask "what was that altitude?".
Here's a great example of someone who didn't have a pen and an approach to writing down clearances.

Why can't they just email or sms that kind of stuff... or bring it up in a screen like a GPS guide in the car. is it asking too much?

@Firee Because using emails or SMS is too static, these items can change at short notice. You can receive some clearances through CPLDC, but quick changes are done over the frequency again.

I don't get it. If the pilots have to write them down anyway, it would be much more efficient to just digitally wire and display them…

@Lohoris This is already being done, but only where the instructions do not require immediate action and readback. Check out CPLDC or Pre-Departure Clearances (PDC). This is essentially a digital system which relays information, but does not require immediate action. A clearance you can issue this way, but imagine you would want to instruct a go-around with such a system. This would be too time-critical.

@Lohoris It's not that simple.  Radio works really well (so why replace it?) and one of the really important benefits is that it's not just you who hears the instruction and responds.  Everyone else hears it too which is important to maintain "situational awareness".  I once spent a lot of time looking for an aircraft I knew was (wrongly) heading straight for me at about the same altitude because they ignored the fact that the controller had already told them that the airfield I was at had no "deadside".

@Simon I didn't mean to suggest to replace radio, just to replace the pen&paper they use to write down radio instructions.

@Lohoris  So you propose to replace a pen and paper, which always works, with extra electronics (both ground and air) with more to go wrong, extra fuel costs, extra maintenance costs and so on.  What's not to like ;)

@Simon "always works" != "But this is where the danger creeps in. It is possible, and has happened, that the crew think they heard something but actually, the instruction was different today." You can write down the wrong thing. One is not necessarily better than the other.

@Lohoris There is no more chance of that, than the controller typing in the wrong intersection.  You have the possibility of human error at both ends.

@Simon Actually, there are significant advantages to using a digital text-based system rather than voice comm. The biggest is time on frequency. With a digital system, the instructions can be transmitted almost instantly rather than tying up the frequencies for several seconds for the controller to read instruction, then the pilot to read them back (and, as you mentioned, potentially ask for another read from the controller) before the next aircraft can make a request. The FAA plans to implement such a system.

@reirab There are (substantive) objections to that FAA proposal, not the least of which is the loss of mutual situational awareness when pilots don't hear clearances being read to other planes, but that aside the FAA's DataComm proposal does not replace voice radio communication, it supplements it for "routine instructions".

@Lohoris The risk of mis-copying instructions is mitigated through the use of readbacks - a key safety feature missing from most of the digital alternatives. (As Simon mentioned, how would you check if the controller mis-enters an altitude - 4500 instead of 3500? With a readback the controller can say "Negative - the altitude is three thousand five hundred", with a digital message you lose the cross-check.)

@voretaq7 Yes, it's obviously not designed to replace voice comm entirely, but it is designed to replace voice communication as the primary means of ATC-pilot communication. Good point about read-backs, but at least with the digital system the controller can see the instruction on his screen. That doesn't guarantee that they'll actually re-read it, but it's at least a way they can verify what they sent.

I still have big problems in just reading back the most easy things. Once I forgot my pen and paper. It was just the QNH and runway I should turn downwind to and I messed it completely up. Never got it correct. It was so embarassing. Fortunately it was on IVAO and not in real world.

The lengthiest instruction is a clearance.  A common mnemonic for that is CRAFT for clearance limit, route of flight, initial altitude, departure frequency, and transponder code.  If I'm not getting a clearance via ACARS I'd jot CRAFT (vertically) down on a the dispatch paperwork (or a kneeboard if I'm flying recreationaly) and write the relevant parts of the clearance next to the letters.
For many other instructions if not very short I'll use the FMS as a scratchpad for shorthand notation.  For example for an instruction like "Taxi runway 27 via W, M, S, K hold short B" I'd write 27 WMSK/B.  Similarly for an instruction like "Cross SWEET at 7000" I'd write SWEET/7 or /7000 (the latter of which I could then put in the FMS for VNAV guidance).

I write CRAFT, too, and leave a few lines for Route of flight